EGU2020-1375
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-1375
EGU General Assembly 2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Morphometric analysis of the post-caldera monogenetic volcanoes at Deception Island, Antarctica: implications for landform recognition and volcanic hazard assessment

Dario Pedrazzi1, Gabor Kereszturi2, Stefania Schamuells1, Agustin Lobo1, and Janina Calle3
Dario Pedrazzi et al.
  • 1ICTJA, CSIC, Group of Volcanology, SIMGEO UB-CSIC, Institute of Earth Sciences Jaume Almera, Lluis Sole i Sabaris s/n, 08028 Barcelona, Spain
  • 2Volcanic Risk Solutions, School of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
  • 3Gli Studies & Projects GLISP S.A., Principal Florida Norte s/n, Guayas, Guayaquil, Ecuador

Deception Island is one of the most active volcanoes in Antarctica, with more than 20 monogenetic eruptions during the Holocene. The latest episodes of 1967, 1969 and 1970 have shown that volcanic activity on Deception Island can become a concern for tourists, scientists, and military personnel working on or near the island.

The objective of this work is, therefore to identify eruptive processes and the evolution of post-caldera volcanic edifices at Deception Island by morphometric analysis, supported by field observations. This methodology has been used since the 1970s to analyse mafic monogenetic volcanoes but it has not been fully developed until recently.

Tuff cones and rings, as a result of magma-water interaction, represent the most common eruptive events occurring during Deception Island's recent geological past and are therefore the most likely to occur in the near future. This work provides an opportunity to incorporate for the first time at Deception Island geomorphological observations for a better comprehension of the potential evolution of a future eruption and for a broader understanding of volcanic hazards on this island.

This research was supported by the MICINN grant CTM2011- 13578-E and was partially funded by the POSVOLDEC project (CTM2016-79617-P) (AEI/FEDER-UE). A.G. is grateful for her Ramón y Cajal contract (RYC-2012-11024). D.P. is grateful for his Beatriu de Pinós (2016 BP 00086) and Juan de la Cierva (IJCI-2016-30482) contracts. This research is part of POLARCSIC and AntVolc activities

How to cite: Pedrazzi, D., Kereszturi, G., Schamuells, S., Lobo, A., and Calle, J.: Morphometric analysis of the post-caldera monogenetic volcanoes at Deception Island, Antarctica: implications for landform recognition and volcanic hazard assessment, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-1375, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-1375, 2019

Comments on the presentation

AC: Author Comment | CC: Community Comment | Report abuse

Presentation version 1 – uploaded on 29 Apr 2020
  • CC1: Questions and answers from the live chat during EGU2020, Michael Heap, 11 May 2020

    Q: Where do you expect vents to open

    A: There's a previous work from Bartolini et al. about the probability of vent opening but by this studyint I would rather consider the strong implication of caldera faults

    Q: What's the DEM resolution used?

    A: We used a 2*2

    Q: And cone/ring base contour was drawn manually?

    A: I used a previous geomorphological map and then based on previous field work I drawn manually on Qgis

    Q: From 1967 to 1970 most of the observed vents took place to the N and E. Was this a continuous eruptive event? Any observation at this time? Was this related with ground displacement like large  subsidence?

    A: No almost no observation. if you mean by people standing there. if I am not wrong only one eruption since they all were during southern winter

    Q: How was the 2x2m DEM produced?

    A: It was produced here in the Jaume Almera I can give you further data by email if u want

    Q: How applicable do you think your morphometric results are to other areas given all the frost and glacier erosion in the area.

    A: I think it might be interesting. it is a good methodology that I guess can be applied to other areas. So far most of these works only dealt with scoria cones and almost none with edifices from mamga-water interaction.

    Q: Why not using the DEM-derived slope map to draw at break-in-slope at cone base?

    A: I forgot to mention it. I used as well a DEM-derived slope map. it is in the lower part of the poster

    Q: Thanks. Do you think you can reconstruct the temporal evolution of the eruptive vents for this period (e.g. strati)? Would be nice to know if the activity moved from N to E from 1967 to 1970, a kind of unzipping ring fault (Holohan paper).

    A: Very good question. this was the first goal of our study. first of all we have no stratigraphic marker in the field to correlate the eruptions and then we saw that apparently and differently from scoria cones it doesn't seem to work with these type of landforms. we have found no connection between morphometric parameters and ages.in this case the erosion seems to play a secondary role on the morphology